Drops LLM into open source world, leaves without explaining. Plausible deniability through leak. No one punished.
Legend. Like handing everyone in America a nail gun.
71–80 of 113 posts
Drops LLM into open source world, leaves without explaining. Plausible deniability through leak. No one punished.
Legend. Like handing everyone in America a nail gun.
The gov and the corps are not supposed to be the ultimate arbiters of authority. The was the crux of the American Revolution: throwing out the king.
Remember that e.g. Palmer Luckey and co. are busy making Skynet (Anduril Industries). The system is poised to enforce policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
stop using the internet
With the exception (currently) of in person conversation, AI can be used basically every other form of communication (phone calls, written communication, TV, radio, etc). It’s not just an Internet issue.
I could be wrong, but I’m fairly sure we’re not yet at the point of convincing, real-time voice gen, nor any kind of decent quality TV (sadly), although printed text and (non-live) radio are certainly viable right now
> "expectation that companies like yours must make sure their products are safe before making them available to the public." Lets make a guess, they are going to say its dangerous and we need regulation to prevent competitio---terorrism. Here is what you need to do instead, get some smart people from various agencies that are trustworthy, have them use the openAI playground and see what can be accomplished. Then show…
Why are regulations bad? When there are no regulations the results are usually not pretty. Current big tech dystopia, stock market crash of 1929, UK textile mills worked by children in the Industrial Revolution... Why should we expect AI to not repeat the same abuses and errors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are regulations bad? When there are no regulations the results are usually not pretty. Current big tech dystopia, stock market crash of 1929, UK textile mills worked by children in the Industrial Revolution... Why should we expect AI to not repeat the same abuses and errors?
Regulations are good when they're made by smart people who are experts in what they're regulating, with an eye toward creating an environment of fair competition, and perhaps protecting US interests for things like export controls, etc. Regulations are bad when they are made from a position of emotion, partisan hackery, protectionism of either incumbents as we are likely to see here or specific industries/sectors, or…
Agencies and committees are full of very smart and conscientious people who are able to understand an issue and create reasonable regulations. Problem is that political leadership usually messes up things by going with ideology or lobbyist interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1A makes regulating software basically impossible. I can’t imagine what additionally regulation they think they’re going to implement that will survive the judiciary. The only legal barrier I can see that could influence these AI services is that that their output is obviously not shielded from liability by Section 230. But that will play out in the civil courts, if at all. I’d say the more likely outcome is the far…
Software is not speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1A makes regulating software basically impossible. I can’t imagine what additionally regulation they think they’re going to implement that will survive the judiciary. The only legal barrier I can see that could influence these AI services is that that their output is obviously not shielded from liability by Section 230. But that will play out in the civil courts, if at all. I’d say the more likely outcome is the far…
Sorry but this comment is just totally wrong. Look into weapons exports that applied to cryptography, google providing android to Huawei, etc. etc. etc. etc. i mean jeez you don't have to look far for counterpoints to what you're saying
"In early May 1945, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, with the approval of President Harry S. Truman, formed an Interim Committee of top officials charged with recommending the proper use of atomic weapons in wartime and developing a position for the United States on postwar atomic policy. Stimson headed the advisory group composed of Vannevar Bush, James Conant, Karl T. Compton, Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph A.…
So, should we expect the AI equivalent of Hiroshima in a couple months? An awe inspiring demonstration of raw power to silence any detractors? What would that look like?
Hiroshima wasn't a demonstration of power to silence critics of nuclear physics. If we're launching a Manhattan Project in AI, it would be in a fine-targeting propaganda machine or self-learning killer robots.
Another concern could be about (mis)use of the LLMs chatBots for engineering Election outcomes?